think of religions when you are reading this.
Why? These are scientists we are talking about, specialists in this field, not uneducated masses of people. In addition, this is not a belief system, they have based these beliefs on empirical evidence, unlike theists, who simply cannot, because there is no evidence indicating the existence of a God.
majority doesn't = right or the earth will still be thought of as flat. how do you know what the majority supports anyhow?
That is because they had no reason to doubt what they believed to be true. Scientists now have access to a hell of a lot of data on the matter of global climate change. It is upon this data that scientists based their opinions, and as the vast majority of scientists believe it to be true, this leaves the 10% minority, most of whom are employed by oil companies conducting their own studies, which are instantly discredited by the unbiased majority.
How do I know? Because I read around the subject a lot.
@ BluesBros, I'll do my best to distinguish between the two posts.
The assumption that humans have a natural cycle of emissions? What? Humans cannot be in anyway compared to what is natural because as far as we know we are unique in intelligence, but especially in activies, patterns, habits, etc.
Why can we not be compared to things that are natural. Are you suggestion that we are unnatural? That we are artificial?
Two graphs that say the same thing btw. And a graph on modeled and observed temperature? The projection and the model are simply laughable in my eyes.
Please explain why? They are based upon current trends of emissions and their growth. They seem fairly solid to me.
Merely stating cause and effect exists does not make it true. The only way to do that is with experiments, and as you said it cannot be done.
Experiments are not the only way to prove a positive. Empirical evidence will suffice and on the subject of global climate change, we have that in abundance.
We're really just going to have to trust with Climate Change, and that's a problem. Because there are negatives to trying to stop it, so if it doesn't exist, we don't want to deal with it.
Even if it turns out not to exist (and I hope it doesn't), do you not think that as habitants of this Earth we have a duty to minimise the negative impact we have on the planet?
More crops in high altitude areas
Less crops in low altitude areas, effectively killing literally millions of subsistance farmers the world over. Not everyone has the luxury to be born up high.
Higher rice yields
Far less cereal crop yields. I hope you enjoy your rice. Also, say goodbye to cheap meat. With low cereal crop yields there won't be enough to feed the massive herds of livestock we in the West enjoy.
Fewer deaths from cold exposure
Most places where you're likely to die from exposure will stay fairly cold. Do remember that it's an average increase. Some places will get colder.
Record profits for Pharmaceutical industry.
Why's that a good thing? Also, record numbers of people will be exposed to Malaria, now that the climate is getting warmer. Apparently the UK will be swarming with mosquitos if the predictions are correct.
Acces to Arctic oil. More mining in Greenland.
It is illegal to mine on the poles. Although Greenland is fine. However the reduction in Arctic ice will mean the extinction of most animals living there, as well as a disruption of the surface currents which affect ecosystems wround the globe.
So you can now no longer say Global Warming is bad for food production.
As I implied before, it will be bad for certain foodstuffs, but be sure, say goodbye to your current lifestyle if the world average temperature increases.
I'm still not convinced of it's existence. But if I was, I would know it wasn't all doom and gloom.
Of course as a species we will adapt. I'm sure we'll have to be much more efficient and egalitarian with regards to our resources, however we will survive. What you haven't mentioned is the mass immigration that will have to be dealt with. Millions possibly 1 billion people will be displaced, either by flooding, or by desertification, and they have to go somewhere. Personally I don't think it's fair that rich industrialised nations that can afford to deal with the situation cause this crisis which then has a detrimental affect on the totally unprepared 3rd world.
I hope I'm not like Sassin and am hurting my side more than helping xD
I'd say so, but I am not convinced of your arguments. They have no real substance. It is mostly based on the assumption 'correlation does not equal causation' whixh is fine, but doesn't really apply to this problem because of the overhwlming amount of empirical evidence.
Btw, I have a tendency to argue with sides I don't agree with on this site because it's more fun and difficult. But I will never tell you if I really believe in global warming or not =P
I do sincerely hope you are playing Devil's Advocate and do believe in global climate change, or at least I hope I have convinced you of its existence.
